Gothard’s Biblical Inoculation

Since our readership has rapidly expanded over the past few years, we want to occasionally draw attention to earlier articles for those who may have missed them. Today's article was among our first articles published on Recovering Grace on July 25, 2011. It addresses the question of why people might choose to follow Bill Gothard's teachings, even though there are many biblical errors that permeate his doctrine.

Question: How do you ensure that your children don’t catch a deadly disease? Simple…inoculate them. In the 1700s, it was discovered that dipping a needle into the pus of a smallpox blister and then inserting that same needle into a healthy person prevented them from getting the disease. The infected dose was large enough for the body to create a defense against the disease, but small enough for the healthy person not to catch it.

Question: If you are the leader of a cult-like sect of Christianity, how do you inoculate your followers from the teachings of “outsiders?” Simple…give them a heads up of what the “outsiders” will try to say and why the “outsiders” are wrong. Bill Gothard is a master at inoculating his followers from anyone who would poke holes in his teaching. Allow me to present a case for four of his “inoculations” which combined are extremely enslaving.

1. “Disagreement is a Sign of Hidden Sin”

On the first night of the Basic Seminar, Bill quips that “A man’s morality will dictate his theology.”1 True, because of our fallen nature, we tend to justify our sin rather than repent of it. However, this statement is quoted again in the section of the Men’s Manual calling fathers to discern false teachings. He goes on to say, “If they [“outsiders”] want to argue over heresy, listen for clues to their moral problems.”2

Heresy is a word to be used with caution. Certain doctrines of Christianity are non-negotiable, but many have a little wiggle room for disagreement (if not a lot). That’s why we have so many denominations within Christendom. However, Bill “inoculates” his followers from “outsiders” by suggesting their theology is formed to justify indulgence in some type of sinful behavior. This seems a little below the belt…especially if the issue contested is something like rock music or blue jeans.

One page later, Bill brings a railing indictment upon any spiritual leader who makes a move to synthesize Biblical standards (i.e. Bill’s standards) with culture. “The clear teachings of Christ, Paul, and Peter are of particular embarrassment to religious leaders who want to be friends with the world.”3 This kind of theological bullying works to prevent any genuine biblical dialogue as no one wants to be a caught fraternizing with “world lovers.”

2. “Scholarship is Misleading”

Over and over, Gothard presents scholarship as the opposite of the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Logic is presented as humanly opposed to God’s wisdom. “Neither the inspiration or the true meaning of scripture will be understood intellectually, but will be discerned spiritually.”4 Yes, God’s ways are higher than ours and go against our natural desires, but to go so far as to suggest they are not logical or intellectually incomprehensible goes too far.

“…rules of scholarship were designed to avoid error, but these same rules in the hands of false teachers can be misused to make a verse give an opposite meaning or no meaning at all. This is why true interpretation goes beyond human scholarship to the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit.”5 Gothard dismisses the reality of legitimate issues of scholarship which are vital to the correct understanding of a biblical passage.

For example, Paul’s letters were written to real people, with real problems, in a real historical culture. Ancient words and phrases could have several possible meanings depending on context. Scholarship is crucial to properly interpreting these texts. I’m not denying the need for the illumination of the Holy Spirit; it is very much needed. But our intellect is part of God’s good creation. Logic and knowledge can be used for good or evil; it was tainted by the fall of Adam, but can and is redeemed by the work of Christ’s cross. (Besides, most of the scholars I know who would disagree with Bill’s teachings are born-again Christians who have the Holy Spirit indwelling in them).

3. “Scripture is Subjective”

This point follows from the last one. Since Bill doesn’t recognize logical, intellectual, or scholarly critique as valid, he is free to interpret the scriptures as he feels led by the Spirit. “God’s Spirit is the author and interpreter of Scripture. Once He enters our spirit, He is able to rebuild our thoughts, emotions and will around a comprehension of His Word.”6The only problem is we cannot measure the Spirit’s illumination in one believer vs. another. If two believers claim a verse means two different things (A regular occurrence in church history), apart from scholarship, it turns into a glorified “my gut feeling is more spiritual than yours” argument.

Bill claims, “There is only one interpretation of Scripture, but there are many applications. These open up worlds of meaning in life.”7 While multiple applications can be made from a text, not all applications are equally authoritative for the church as a whole. We ought to take great caution before holding other believers up to our applications (See Paul’s exhortations in Romans 14:1-10). However, these “applications” are the meat of Gothard’s teachings.

“After…we put related passages together, we begin to see underlying principles within that Scripture which can be applied to our lives.”8 Once Bill has given himself the authority to invoke the Spirit’s illumination and established the authority of multiple applications, he then urges his followers to buy into “hidden” principles which he has discovered (Literally, a canon within a canon). To Bill’s followers, these secret principles are much more enticing than the plain meaning of the Biblical text. This is why you will rarely see Bill exegete an entire chapter of the Bible and teach the historical, grammatical, and cultural point of the passage (the point which the original author actually meant).

4. “Dissenters are to be Shunned”

The final inoculation, designed to protect his followers from the truth, is really rather childish: Avoid theological dialogue. There is a whole section in the Advanced Seminar Textbook dedicated to teaching your family to “Stand Alone.” In fact Gothard urges“Do not argue about theology” and then follows it with the command that “if they (“outsiders”) ask a foolish or unlearned question, avoid it.”9 He claims 2 Timothy 2:15-17 & 2:24-25 as his basis for this principle.

Yes, Christians should not be quarrelsome, but this does not mean they should never discuss and defend the accuracy of doctrine, in fact the same passage teaches the opposite. “Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth”10 (See also 1 Tim 1:3, 4:6, 4:11, 6:2 & 2 Tim 4:2). Alas, Bill makes it all too easy for one who simply doesn’t see things his way to be labeled a scorning fool who “has rejected truth and delights in mocking Christians and their standards…Remove yourself from him…He is the victim of his own passions. He is committed to teaching you. We should reject his teachings and have no association with him.”11

Bruce has spent several years in Christian ministry as a senior pastor, worship pastor, and youth pastor. He is working on a Masters in Divinity from one of the largest seminaries in the country. He is happily married and has three children.

All articles on this site reflect the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of other Recovering Grace contributors or the leadership of the site. Students who have survived Gothardism tend to end up at a wide variety of places on the spiritual and theological spectrum, thus the diversity of opinions expressed on this website reflects that. For our official statement of beliefs, click here.

55 Comments

Thank you for reposting this article. Having grown up in ATI (all 12 years of my education) and having gone to every seminar hosted in our city (required by my parents) which was at least one a year, it is very difficult for me to understand how to properly view God and the Bible. I see IBLP as a cult now, and am seeking to understand grace and who God truly is. I make a little progress, then I hear something from my past belief system and I begin to shut down emotionally and spiritually. Wow. It is a hard recovery journey,but I am so, so grateful I am experiencing the freedom now in Christ. Thank you RG. It is very helpful to come here and know people on here understand. I believe you have to have lived in this cult system to understand how hard it is to get out.

Wounded, my heart goes out for you. I was watching a movie a few years ago in which the main actress was struggling with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) because of gruesome wreck she had witnessed. Her jumpiness and irrational emotional over reactions to situations felt very familiar. That led me to read a book called "The Many Faces of PTSD" and the idea that I might be struggling with it myself from a combination of IBLP and family anger and violence. When you mention "triggers" from the Bible and IBLP language all of this comes to mind. I ended up on an anti-depressenet for a year which really helped level some things off. I'm also coming to terms with the fact that low grade depression and PTSD are probably just going to be part of my emotional soup for the rest of my life and that some things are going to just flat come harder for me when it comes to trusting and enjoying things in a spiritual context like grace. Its so messed up that words that are meant by God to trigger peace and joy trigger the opposite in us...thats why spiritual abuse is about as evil as it gets. Praying for you. -Paul

Yes, we have been innoculated on all counts. Processing this for us is two-fold. First, the perspective of us as 'insiders' looking 'out; and secondly, as 'outsiders' looking 'in.' We are in both circumstances CURRENTLY, simotaneously....

I used to work for GM. There are a ton of parallels between the two organizations. I think the recall failure came from one company truism I was taught. "GM is a company where everyone can say 'no', but no one can say 'yes'." In other words, instead of the committee structure within GM giving power to lower levels of employees to enact change, it became a way for management to deflect blame for bad decisions. There is no doubt in my mind that some executive blocked the recall, but the number one management skill in GM is not getting stuck with the blame for a bad decision.

In a way, I left GM after getting punished too many times for trying to do the right things.

I thought it quite interesting that, for all these years, Gothard was "vaccinating" his followers against those who oppose him -- while his MTIA literature taught his followers not to receive ACTUAL vaccinations against REAL diseases.

One thing I don't quite get: Bill's undergrad, and ministry foundation came from WHEATON: that's supposedly a bedrock of scholarship. How did Bill avoid pushback from his alma mater, or were they busy with other fish to fry ?? How did he keep other pastors at bay who went to the pastor's conferences ??

Bill outgrew Wheaton and went on his own. If you look, how much has Wheaton publicized that Bill graduated from there? Usually it's IBLP that has advertised that Bill graduated from there.

Along with that, IBLP (IBYC) went on such a different trajectory, that it went out of the normal sphere of Wheaton, at least from my perspective, as I attended a bible school with a similar theological and spiritual approach to that of Wheaton.

I forgot to add this - Even Bart Ehrman graduated from Wheaton too, and he's gone off of the proverbial deep end for Evangelical scholarship. Just because one gets their start at a evangelical school doesn't mean that he or she will always stick to that same path.

greg rMarch 14, 2014

Very well said; I wasn't so much surprised that someone could wander from the solid education they recieved (I've seen that often, really). I was more curious if, and when, Wheaton tried to push back , or rein in 'their' celebrity son. Maybe they tried, or maybe they figured there wasn't much they could do that hadn't already been tried.

The only effective way to inoculate anyone against the poison of error and deceit, is yes, tell them what error is, but ultimately they must be taught the the Truth in Jesus Christ. The way to spot counterfeits is to know the genuine article.

I can't tell you how many times I have heard how the Secret Service identifies counterfeit money by only handling the real monetary notes. It is incredible that we were duped into only handling the counterfeit that Mr. Gothard produced!

@David- I don't remember your iblp experience but your statement is one of Gothard's teachings. Not accusing you of anything. It just reminded me of another one of his stupid (untrue) stories about how the Feds train to spot a counterfeit by only ever showing them the real thing.

I does make me think it's too simplistic an answer. We need to teach people how to think and engage ideas. We do need to teach people the nature of false gospels and idolatry. We do need to teach people how to evaluate the complexities of their own hearts.

Your point is certainly week taken that we need to hammer away at the truth of who Jesus is and what he accomplished for sinners in his life, death, resurrection, & ascension. I just cringe at your final statement.

@mark & Shane: great points both of "youze guys" as my Jersey friends would say. Bills propensity for boiling things down, and getting from a to d (d is for ditch) did his audience no favor.I would also say his hermeneutics of certainty in areas where there was none ( or not much) played well in his evangelical neighborhood, and as a response to the relativist 60,s & 70's..

I don't care what Gothard said. Frankly, I think some of the people on this RG site are so blind to the Truth and so focused on Gothard and his heresies, that there seems to be few of you that have any idea of the Truth. Gothard is a heretic. But a heretic has a brain. They can take a true concept and apply it to their heresy. Or is that also too simplistic? I stand by my comment one hundred percent.

ShaneMarch 14, 2014

@David I'm not sure I understand this statement:"there seems to be few of you that have any idea of the Truth."

Who's the you in your statement? What's the basis of your assertion that there are only a few here who understand the Truth? What's the basis of your knowledge of "you"'s (our?-I don't know if your including me in that assertion) understanding?

To say that all one needs to know to spot counterfeits is to know the genuine article is in fact too simplistic. It doesn't account for the Scriptures regularly pointing out false teaching and it's nature. It doesn't account for "lord I believe, help my unbelief." It doesn't account for the law's function to expose sin and error in service to the gospel. The Bible simply does not simply point out the the Truth; it weaves a story of rescue around the person and work of Jesus.

I've appreciated your consistently reminding folks that Gothard is a false teacher and Gathardiam is a cult, but now it appears your discounting that it takes exposing error to help people out of said cult. The way to help people to spot a counterfeit is to expose counterfeits for what they are and teach them the genuine article.

DavidMarch 14, 2014

I'm done here.

MarkMarch 14, 2014

David, I think you're right in a sense. It's only in the last two years that I began to see my striving to live a good life as a form of legalism. I'm still looking to understand how grace applies to my life and how my life bears fruit that comes from being filled with grace rather than a desire to build a shell around me of the appearance of perfection.

But, I think part of my journey from legalism to grace, which I am still too near the city of legalism, is understanding how legalism creeps in to my thoughts. Legalism is a counterfeit righteousness and it is not Truth.

So, I ask you, instead of brushing off the struggling legalists here hoping to walk away from the counterfeit and on to the true, could you stay and help?

ShaneMarch 14, 2014

Fair enough. Let me just say I made what I thought was a pretty light hearted observation about your first statement. You appear to me to have swung back fairly hard or at least pointedly. I'm not offended but surprised. You also made a broad assertion about whoever "you" is. You're free to stand by all your statements, to reply pointedly, and bail on the conversation, but I find it confusing.

But hey, as I said, I've appreciated your consistently reminding folks that Gothard is a heretic (I'm making a bit of an educated guess here that you're the same David).

David, I understand what you're getting at and ultimately yes, we need the Truth which is and is found in Jesus Christ.

Having said that, the process of getting from here to there isn't always that simple. When the Truth has been coopted and bastardized into a man-made, self-insulating system of quasi-truth, with several parts truth to several parts error, a person's concept of truth can become skewed. When a leader sets himself up as trustworthy while simultaneously doing everything possible to break his followers of their own ability to discern, and then shatters that trust, his followers suddenly find themselves in the double whammy. Their confidence in the leader is shattered and their own ability to discern is in doubt. Working through that is a process - something that encompasses more than simply being exposed to and taught the Truth. You have to untangle the mess.

I had a situation in which a pastor betrayed my trust and used me (and others) for his own purposes. I'll spare you the details but it was years before I was able to trust a pastor again, even a good one. I got there, but it took time. All the hermeneutics in the world wouldn't have added up to a quick fix. I needed to relearn who and what I could trust and I needed to rediscover who God is.

"The only effective way to inoculate anyone against the poison of error and deceit, is yes, tell them what error is, but ultimately they must be taught the the Truth in Jesus Christ. The way to spot counterfeits is to know the genuine article."

Pardon my poking my nose into this, but in reading David's original comment, copied above, he directly stated the need to identify the errors. Please read it. Thus, I am confused about all of the objections pointing out the need to identify the errors? He said that directly. Furthermore, he simply stated that the solution to error is the Truth. Why is that too simplistic? It doesn't deny that we all have complex issues, but is a simple statement and a fact. If all we do is point out error this will not of itself lead us into the Truth. I think we can all testify to the fact that we wish we had known the Truth before we got into error. It would have saved many of us a lot of grief. It would have inoculated us. I have to say that all of us, myself included, need to listen a bit more instead of reacting. So what if Gothard used that example? I've heard other teachers use it.

ShaneMarch 14, 2014

Allen, Thanks. And you're right he does say that. I saw that he said that. For my part I was attempting to engage and confessed that I, because of experience, found his last statement cringeworthy. I had no intention of taking him to task. I do find; "the way to spot counterfeits is to know the genuine article." as an oversimplifying quip. Not a huge deal. Just made me shiver a bit. Summary statements and corner-cutting in such venues are necessary and necessarily ambiguous.

I have no problem admitting I misunderstood or too narrowly construed what he said. Had he responded as you have I would have acknowledged it's a quibble and moved on (I think. I hope. I'm not above being a Grade A a** as well).

@David- I was not trolling nor intending to attack you in any way. No need to reply, but I want play and work well with others here and I know that can be hard in the flat electronic medium.

If we had "like" buttons , I'd smack it silly; often getting untangled has both a doctrinal/scriptural component AND a relational one: why should I trust YOUR take on verse... or why should I even trust MYSELF with....

yes, the WORD is an anchor in ways our own feelings are not, but we are foolish to not face this gordian knot on both fronts. sorry for the bucket full of nots/knots

I worked in banking before I was married. We were taught how to identify counterfeit money by not only knowing the genuine article with all of the identifying markers placed within each bill, but also knew where to look for the absence of markers, or find a marker that has been manipulated. Identifying counterfeits has to do with the markers placed within the bills by the maker.

Within the world we live are markers. There are many signals of transcendence that act as markers that tell us of our need for God's answer to the dilemma we find ourselves in, a sinner needing reconciled to God.

We find our markers within ourselves, observing the world around us, through Scripture, and by the Holy Spirit convicting our hearts of truth. I believe this is why many here were only deceived for a time. The markers of truth no longer matched the reality you were living. Gothard could twist Scripture, he could alter the world you were exposed to, he could claim to have a special Spirit filled revelation (rhema) for you to follow, but he couldn't stop your hearts from longing to be at peace with God.

Yeah the old canard that people who are trained to recognize counterfeit money only handle real money for their training is not a true story. One simple counter-example is the secret service web site where they show samples of both real and counterfeit to help you make the comparison: http://www.secretservice.gov/money_detect.shtml

Gothard isn't the only one who uses the counterfeiter example. John McArthur also uses it. Here is an interesting blog post from a guy who wanted to see if it was actually true.http://www.challies.com/articles/counterfeit-detection-part-1

ShaneMarch 14, 2014

This is actually one of my great fears in preaching, and I think it's from my skepticism developed from listening and buying all Gothard's stupid and or false anecdotes. I work really hard to avoid preacher stories. Not that they're all bad, but I'm cynical enough to know how people hear them; my b.s. radar goes up pretty quickly. It can't help the sermon nor the preacher's credibility.

I think there is a nugget of truth in these statements, but instead of general principles, they were turned into black and white tests of faith.

I think the problem with the statements is turning everything into snap judgments. Somehow in one sentence, I can decide whether you're good or bad, whether I should converse with you or shun you, whether you are truly trying to understand scripture or simply use it to justify sin. One of the most helpful parts for me in "Instruments in the Redeemer's Hands" (Paul David Tripp) was that the fly-by criticisms just don't help. If we are going to help people, we need to become involved in their lives, not just drop in Bible verse care packages.

I just had an additional thought. In a sense, Gothard's teachings also innoculate his followers from true Christians wanting to lead them towards grace. Instead of seeing the freedom of the Christian life, followers assume people will be leading them towards moral depravity.

I grew up in a family with legalistic leanings, and there was definitely that thought - THEIR parents didn't have the same high standards as our family did. Thankfully, my parents saw great benefit in Christian kids getting together, so we were not isolated, but there was still a sense I had growing up that we had some sort of corner on Biblical understanding.

Mark, I agree, personal involvement is key. I love the visual of "Bible verse care packages"--it's amazing how much damage they can cause when they are dropped haphazardly like bombs to hit people in the head!

What arrested my attention was the quote, "God’s Spirit is the author and interpreter of Scripture. Once He enters our spirit..."

That seems like a singularly strange way of communicating the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but I wonder if it's another expression of what seems to be an utter distrust of the body and the flesh. Is this as typical as it would appear? Or am I reading into it?

I think someone compared Gothardism to Gnosticism. The Gnostics believed that flesh was evil, and that a holy God could never associate with flesh. Based on what I've seen discussed, Gothard is a quasi-Gnostic. The plurality of rules regarding opposite sex interactions is designed to prevent what will certainly, in his mind, happen if sinful flesh is allowed a foot in the door.

Gnosticism has more to do with holding to an alleged "higher" knowledge that the privileged few are privy to. This knowledge is secret or somewhat secret, and must be explained by those higher up the ladder. Gothard would NEVER see the connection, but I see his package as very Gnostic, and his teaching on authority plays strongly into that of course. The flesh/spirit dualism is more platonic thought. Getting kinda deeeep here..lol

MarkMarch 14, 2014

Here's a reasonable answer from http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies-----Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)

"Matter is evil!" was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek philosophers. It stood against Catholic teaching, not only because it contradicts Genesis 1:31 ("And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good") and other scriptures, but because it denies the Incarnation. If matter is evil, then Jesus Christ could not be true God and true man, for Christ is in no way evil. Thus many Gnostics denied the Incarnation, claiming that Christ only appeared to be a man, but that his humanity was an illusion. Some Gnostics, recognizing that the Old Testament taught that God created matter, claimed that the God of the Jews was an evil deity who was distinct from the New Testament God of Jesus Christ. They also proposed belief in many divine beings, known as "aeons," who mediated between man and the ultimate, unreachable God. The lowest of these aeons, the one who had contact with men, was supposed to be Jesus Christ. -----

Since Gnosticism was already alive and well during the NT church area, we see hints of opposition to it here: "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist." (2 John 1:7)

You are right, in that Gnostics claimed a higher knowledge, and that knowledge was tiered - multiple higher spiritual realms with their own knowledge - but I think the relationship to Christianity was the thought that flesh was inherently evil and the thought that Christ, therefore, could not have truly come in the flesh.

greg rMarch 14, 2014

From Jack Zavada @ about.com: looks like we are both right....

Gnosticism was a second century heresy claiming that salvation could be gained through secret knowledge. Gnosticism is derived from the Greek word gnosis, meaning "to know."

Gnostics also believed that the material world (matter) is evil and that only the spirit is good. They constructed an evil God and beings of the Old Testament to explain the creation of the world (matter), and considered Jesus Christ a wholly spiritual God.

These two beliefs clash strongly with accepted Christian doctrine. Christianity teaches that salvation is available to everyone, not just a special few, and that it comes from grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9), and not from study or works. The only source of truth is the Bible, Christianity asserts.

Gnostics were divided on Jesus. One view held that he only appeared to have human form but that he was actually spirit only. The other view contended that his divine spirit came upon his human body at baptism and departed before the crucifixion. Christianity, on the other hand, holds that Jesus was fully man and fully God and that his human and divine natures were both present and necessary to provide a suitable sacrifice for humanity's sin.

@Pamela: some of Bill's weirdness , and fixation, about sex could have gnostic roots. His hostility to the 'secular world' and college might also be a hostility to the material world, hard for me to judge that from here. He seemed to put a MUCH higher value on 'spiritual' things than mental/scholarly things, and to see these as opposed. Not a very Jewish/biblical view , imo.

I'm not a seminar alumna, much less an ATI student or mom, but I've been around enough IBLP-related instruction to have seen at least the dualism that greg r speaks of. I was just wondering how far Mr. Gothard takes this. I've seen now how it impacts his teachings for victims of abuse, and I suspect it strongly impacts his rejection of a rock beat. But like I said, I've never been to a seminar, and so I don't have access to anything specific.

I think both of you, Phyllis and Eric are correct. Morality is the fruit. The fruit dictates how one lives out his theology (life). We all live out our theology based on our morality (fruit). So Eric's statement is valid and rings true: A man's morality dictates his theology. Our problem was that living at such distance spread all over North America, we did not know BG's morality.

I remember attending morning "Wisdom Searches" at EXCEL, at Children's Institutes, and at other training sessions and feeling like other students must be a lot more spiritually perceptive than I was because they found all kinds of things in the Scripture that I totally didn't see in the passage. Then I went to Bible college straight out of 15 years in ATI, and I was amazed to discover the idea of looking at Scripture in context. It was a whole new concept to me. Instead of just reading a passage and then trying to find out "what it means to me," you were supposed to start with the historical context, the author's intended meaning, and the context of the passage! I understand why Bill Gothard was so against sending your kids even to Christian college because by the time I graduated I had come to see most of his teaching as heretical!

Rachel,Good point about Gothard not wanting people to go to Christian college, as they might learn to look at Scripture in context. I was just talking to my wife about that yesterday. Or another thing that people might learn in college, is that when a writer relies on a study or survey to make an argument, that they are actually supposed to reference said study in their footnotes, so that the reader can verify that such a study really happened, whether it was completed in the last 50 years, whether it was published in a science journal and subject to peer review. Much easier if no one goes to college and just accepts your word for it when you refer to a study without any reference.

my question is this: why a para church org that teaches biblical principles? why even dobsons or smalleys org? cant the church handle this? isnt the church doing its job? and why was gothard holding pastors conferences when he himself never was one? chalk( not chalk talk) it up to freedom of speech ( an apparent double edged sword) where if u have the funds u can rent a civic center for a whole week just like rev sun yun moon! (i dunno if rev moon rents for a week but u get the point).

i wonder why gothard couldnt have just pastored a church. with his basic (motivational) gifts of teaching and administration, why not? well, i think i know why. plurality of elders = accountabity TO elders. never mind. i am, however surprised at the endorsement he has recieved over the years by well-respected christian leaders and figureheads such as charles stanley, d. james kennedy, joni earekson tada (a member of john macarthurs church), adrian rodgers, david wilkerson and others.

could it be that the aforementioned leaders were unaware of billy's shenannigans? or maybe (and ive seen this happen) that some have thought him too gifted and valuable to be put on the shelf? "billy dont be a hero, dont be a fool with your life. billy dont be a hero, go out and marry a wife!" thats another thing i cant understand. how come he never got married? i know, ive read how a spirit of conviction came over him when he dated someone once as a young man. yet i see he may have fallen into the same trap as those of roman catholic priests who "forbid to marry".

Gene, your point is well taken. How can a person who had no experience in marriage and family matters be an "expert" on raising children? I have no confidence in Bill telling me how to raise kids, anymore than I would have my ditch-digging next door neighbor offer me brain surgery (even though he would assure me that he knew how to do it because of a divine revelation)! My take on this whole gothardism is not to reduce Christianity to "principles". Gothard has hardly ever if every focused on the Cross of Christ and grace and forgiveness. Bill does not understand what "purity" (He is like one mud covered man calling another man dirty). Purity is not just outward actions or a lack of, but of the heart. Bill is not consistent about "submitting to government authorities." Bill would have to be a "Torrey" then. If he were consistent, our government should apologize to the United Kingdom (England) for rebelling against them in the 1770s. We are submitting to a rebellious illegitimate government---if one goes by Bill's logic. Maybe, I will chill out tonight with all this gothard news by listening to Pink Floyd's "We Don't Need no Education." If nothing else, "We don't need no walls to guide us." Blessings! Tk

I attended one of the first ATI training weeks. During one session for pastors, a pastor challenged Bill on his habit of taking Scriptures out of context. Remarkably, he acknowledged that he does it, saying that it's okay, because his interpretations "agree with the spirit of the Scriptures." And who determines what the "spirit of the Scriptures" is on a subject? You guessed it.

Want to Donate?

Want to donate to the Recovering Grace ministry? Do all of your Amazon shopping using the link below, and a small percentage comes back to us. Or you can donate directly via paypal to finance@recoveringgrace.org. Note: Recovering Grace is not a 501(c)3, and thus gifts are not tax-deductible.